My apology for treating you to more of this kook’s kookiness, but these nutjobs just fascinate me. Mike Elk responded to Betsy Rothstein’s Monday article with a series of typically bizarre e-mails:
[C]riticize him at your own peril — he’ll charge that you’re against people with conditions like Asperger’s and write your boss and insist on your termination. He wrote in 16 times today to tell me why I’m not a journalist and he is. . . .
11:53 a.m. Mike: Reporter with tact for saying racists things against asians [sic] writes story downplaying the racist behavior of Eli Lake – no wonder it was a hit piece. Betsy: I do hope you have a Happy Holidays. And p.s. go fuck yourself. . . .
11:54 a.m. Mike: Quite the solidarity of racists Betsy. Betsy: Okay Mike. You keep believing whatever stupid shit you want.
12 p.m. Mike: [sic] Its not just me. I mean Lee Fang other asians believe it, but you downplay serious life or death issues. People like Eli Lake a racist fascists not actual reporters. Betsy: Great, strangers believe something. I don’t give a shit, Elk. Your thinking is very twisted and weird and I’ll have no part of it. . . .
Mike: Hey Betsy, There is a difference here. The difference is that I am coming after you hard over what you do, you guys mock and make fun of people over how they were born – their race, neorological impairments etc. Learn what real journalism is Betsy. melk Betsy: Interesting. You have the same pattern again and again with everyone. You are the king of journalism, of course. You are seriously demented. And no, that’s not a slam on your mental illness or your dyslexia, it’s a slam on you personally for being such an idiot. And you’re coming after me hard? Oh, also interesting. Thanks for sharing.
12:13 p.m. Mike: Betsy, You work at the Daily Caller enough said? melk Betsy: And your point is what? I’ve never read your magazine. You work at In These Times. Are we just going through our resumes now? You’ve tried to disparage and get three reporters fired in about 7 weeks. Let me fill you in … you’re not some warrior. Your thoughts and accusations don’t add up. Enough said, Mike Elk. . . .
You can read the whole thing — yes, there’s lots more crazy where that came from — and keep this in mind: I have no especial reason to like Betsy Rothstein, or Eli Lake or Rosie Gray, for that matter. It’s not as though we’re all best buddies and ideological soul mates. The story here is quite simple: Mike Elk is dangerously crazy.
But you probably figured that out by now, you racists.
Nice blog ya got here, McCain – it would be a shame if somethin’ happened to it.
It’s nothing personal, it’s just business …………
He looks like he spent his childhood getting hit in the face with a shovel.
NTTAWWT.
Thank you. I didn’t even mention his high forehead, indicative of stupidity.
Mike Elk is fugbuck. Stipulated and passed by acclamation. But maybe we should be looking at the media “gatekeepers” who put headcases like Elk and Barrett Brown on the air and in print, treating them like credible voices. Who booked Mike Elk for that video?
Yeah, those crack “Pennsylvania” troops like the 20th Maine and all those NY, Indiana, New England, West Virginian regiments.
Fihgt lysdexia!
Right – it’s not like he could have foreseen that writing for a far-left labor website wouldn’t bring fame, fortune, and hordes of lefty chicks as groupies.
Who knew?
Not saying he was, and not saying he wasn’t, but it seems like it might have been a reasonable attempt.
You need a white suit, a butterfly net, and two burly attendants to fit your new friends with their straitjackets.
He looks like John Belushi when Franken and Davis were pushing him speedballs on SNL.
Give us a warning so we can sell him phials of “mountain lion” urine to block his scent.
He might be stupid, but sloped skull would look even more stupid.
Sad. Projection and moral equivalence are the prime tools of leftist “reasoning.” So a typical bit of scholarship in their world looks like:
Idea (a) “Wouldn’t it be funny if I could prove Abraham Lincoln kept slaves?”
Projection applied to (a) produces (b): “He probably did keep slaves, so someone probably knew about it.”
Moral equivalence applied to (b) becomes (c): “So if “someone” probably knew, that’s as good as certainty, therefore I know a guy who knew.”
Moral equivalence again applied to (c) give us: “If I know a guy who knew, that’s the same thing as proven.”
Therefore it’s okay to say, “Lincoln secretly kept slaves”. Followed by, “When anyone challenges me, I’ll just say they’re racist.”
QED